In January 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic Party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party.

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today's headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party's goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a "crackpot smear." Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that "Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party." I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.
Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a "contract" promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party's Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party "Candidate Contract" and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.
Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the "only" involvement he'd had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.
Why did Obama deny his ties to ACORN? The group was notorious in 2008 for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to fund ACORN's voter-registration efforts and train some of their organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN's political arm, the New Party.
The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties. Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama's other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.
Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign '08 was in a position to know better.
The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama's 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: "Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995." Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that "he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement."
We've seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama's own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell's assertion more remarkable still.
The New Party had a front group called Progressive Chicago, whose job was to identify candidates that the New Party and its sympathizers might support. Nearly four years before Obama was endorsed by the New Party, both he and Harwell joined Progressive Chicago and began signing public letters that regularly reported on the group's meetings. By prominently taking part in Progressive Chicago activities, Obama was effectively soliciting New Party support for his future political career (as was Harwell, on Obama's behalf). So Harwell's testimony is doubly false.
When the New Party controversy broke out, just about the only mainstream journalist to cover it was Politico's Ben Smith, whose evident purpose was to dismiss it out of hand. He contacted Obama's official spokesman Ben LaBolt, who claimed that his candidate "was never a member" of the New Party. And New Party co-founder and leader Joel Rogers told Smith, "We didn't really have members." But a line in the New Party's official newsletter explicitly identified Obama as a party member. Rogers dismissed that as mere reference to "the fact that the party had endorsed him."
This is nonsense. I exposed the falsity of Rogers's absurd claim, and Smith's credulity in accepting it, in 2008 (here and here). And in Radical-in-Chief I took on Rogers's continuing attempts to justify it. The recently uncovered New Party records reveal how dramatically far from the truth Rogers's statement has been all along.
In a memo dated January 29, 1996, Rogers, writing as head of the New Party Interim Executive Council, addressed "standing concerns regarding existing chapter development and activity, the need for visibility as well as new members." So less than three weeks after Obama joined the New Party, Rogers was fretting about the need for new members. How, then, could Rogers assert in 2008 that his party "didn't really have members"? Internal documents show that the entire leadership of the New Party, both nationally and in Chicago, was practically obsessed with signing up new members, from its founding moments until it dissolved in the late 1990s.
In 2008, after I called Rogers out on his ridiculous claim that his party had no members, he explained to Ben Smith that "we did have regular supporters whom many called 'members,' but it just meant contributing regularly, not getting voting rights or other formal power in NP governance." This is also flatly contradicted by the newly uncovered records.
At just about the time Obama joined the New Party, the Chicago chapter was embroiled in a bitter internal dispute. A party-membership list is attached to a memo in which the leaders of one faction consider a scheme to disqualify potential voting members from a competing faction, on the grounds that those voters had not renewed their memberships. The factional leaders worried that their opponents would legitimately object to this tactic, since a mailing that called for members to renew hadn't been properly sent out. At any rate, the memo clearly demonstrates that, contrary to Rogers's explanation, membership in the New Party entailed the right to vote on matters of party governance. In fact, Obama's own New Party endorsement, being controversial, was thrown open to a members' vote on the day he joined the party.
Were Harwell and Rogers deliberately lying in order to protect Obama and deceive the public? Readers can decide for themselves. Yet it is clear that Obama, through his official spokesman, Ben LaBolt, and the Fight the Smears website, was bent on deceiving the American public about a matter whose truth he well knew.
The documents reveal that the New Party's central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.
The party's official "statement of principles," which candidates seeking endorsement from the Chicago chapter were asked to support, called for a "peaceful revolution" and included redistributive proposals substantially to the left of the Democratic party.
To get a sense of the ideology at play, consider that the meeting at which Obama joined the party opened with the announcement of a forthcoming event featuring the prominent socialist activist Frances Fox Piven. The Chicago New Party sponsored a luncheon with Michael Moore that same year.
I have more to say on the New Party's ideology and program, Obama's ties to the party, and the relevance of all this to the president's campaign for reelection. See the forthcoming issue of National Review.
In the meantime, let us see whether a press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008 — and that in 2012 is obsessed with the president's youthful love letters — will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.

- Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. A longer version of this article appears in the forthcoming June 25 issue of National Review.

2nd Amendment TV (videos)
"The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control."

E.W. Jackson (R-Va)

May 18, 2013

Alan Keyes,
"He must be stopped or the United States will cease to exist."..."We are in the
midst of the greatest crisis this nation has ever seen...chaos, and civil
war...an alleged usurper...destroying our borders...infanticide...this is
insanity...we are claiming that a bankrupt government can save a bankrupt
banking system...this is insanity.." (19Feb09)

The federal government has accumulated more new debt -- $3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29) — during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury."
-- By Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com
(Read The Full Story)

Click Here for videos, graphs, movie & U.S. National Debt totals.3 years ago: The Debt ~ $125T+! Then Obama: Up $22T+ in only 3 years! $22T to $26T+by 2015! Since November 2011 to January 2013 he has added $2 Trillion to the deficit! States' Unfunded: $3.2T+!  (Dec10) From Jan'09 the deficit: $10.2T→$14.6T up $4.3T/42%! -- Federal unfunded liabilities total $84 trillion .. equal to 5.7 percent of the present value of all future GDP, which translates into about 31 percent of the long run federal revenue estimate,” the report states. “Thus federal revenues would have to rise immediately and permanently to 24.1 percent of GDP to cover the fiscal imbalance.” (source: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/16/report-federal-unfunded-liabilities-total-84-trillion/)

Also, see the blog videos below at http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/09/national-debt-how-come-how-much-who-do.htmlWhat were you doing in the last hour while the U.S. Gov't spent $188 Million Dollars of our money! (Every Hour, Every Day!) (Apr11) In 8 years, President Bush added $5 trillion to the national debt; President Obama, according to a revised Dec11 GAO report, added $4T+ to the U.S. deficit in 2011 alone! The GAO estimates the deficit, including o'scamcare & mandates, may grow from $15T+ to over $26T+! UPDATE: A little-noticed event occurred at approximately midnight on Monday, October 31, 2011. The National Debt exceeded the GDP! Imagine what these numbers are going to be now that Obama is reelected! (src)

A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years. At $1/sec it would take 41,194 years just to pay off o'tax'n spend's new Feb12-Feb13 added debt - 538,696 years to pay only the national debt or 4,404,632 years to settle the debt+unfunded liabilities!

"Over the last four years our national debt has risen nearly $6 trillion, and just last week the debt topped an astounding $16 trillion. To put that in perspective, $16 trillion is enough money to fund the US military, along with the military of every NATO country combined… for the next sixteen years! Government spending is projected to hit $3.8 trillion this year alone. Even after every tax dollar paid by Americans has been counted, the government will still overspend by another $1.13 trillion.
Every single second of the day our government spends over $12,000. So in the time it takes you to read this article, roughly five minutes, our government has spent $3.6 million. It take four seconds for the government to spend what the average American earns in an entire year." (source: by Tim Phillips 17Sep12 at TownHall.com)

"Firearms
stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." -- George Washington

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." (Ecclesiastes 10:2)

It has been suggested that o'who?, the clown, and 'those who surround him' are not the bumbling fools they appear to be. Nor are they one of the 'Three Stooges' but rather are shrewd implementation/drivers and fellow-travelers of policies designed to disarm the citizenry & collapse the American economy. Why? o'nocchio's grandiose scheme to "fundamentally transform America" is more than simple campaign rhetoric as can be seen by his use of "enabling acts" to circumvent the Constitution of the United States. As Ollie used to say, "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into."

News via Google

AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News » Gun Rights News

AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News » Ammunition News

AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News » Firearm News

It's a race against time.

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." -- Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948)

Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." -- James Madison, The Federalist No. 51, Independent Journal, Wednesday, February 6, 1788Anti-Federalists and Federalists Papers

"As a nation we have been asleep for years. Lulled by affluence and self-indulgent apathy, our collective awareness has grown dim. This has created an opening for our enemies, one that may ultimately prove fatal. This is the truth and what we do, or don't do, will determine the consequences, for better or worse. It is time to decide." -- truthandcons.blogspot.com